ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REGALA & CRUZ LAW OFFICES

ACCRALAW

THE FIRM LAWYERS PRACTICES PUBLICATIONS AWARDS & CITATIONS NEWS & UPDATES CAREERS CONTACT US

PUBLICATIONS AMICUS CURIAE A A A

Amicus Curiae
Bullying on social media: The Philippines’ current legal platform
Point of Law
Cyndy P. dela Cruz
Others February 01, 2017

ARCHIVE

July 2017 (4) The pen is mightier than the sword or so the adage goes.

June 2017 (3)

May 2017 (6)
When this was once said, it was to highlight the power of thought and idea over brute force and
April 2017 (3)
violence as a way to effect change.
March 2017 (4)
February 2017 (4)
January 2017 (5) Today, the pen can very well be a “tap” of a button, as social media has reinvented our way of life anew
December 2016 (4) -- for good or for bad. Regardless of political affiliation or social philosophy, it is undeniable how the
November 2016 (6) power of social media has shaped recent events.
October 2016 (5)
September 2016 (4)
August 2016 (5)
July 2016 (6)
June 2016 (3)
May 2016 (4)
April 2016 (6)
March 2016 (5)
February 2016 (2)
January 2016 (4)
December 2015 (4)
November 2015 (4)
October 2015 (6)
September 2015 (5)
August 2015 (5)
July 2015 (6)
June 2015 (5)
May 2015 (5) In the Philippines, many attribute President Duterte’s electoral victory to a strong social media
April 2015 (5) presence and awareness from supporters and detractors alike. Similarly, in the United States, President
March 2015 (5) Trump’s astounding victory may not have been predictable on the basis on old measures of popularity,
February 2015 (2) but perhaps to a more subtle, even subliminal influence, perhaps attributable to social media as well.
January 2015 (2)
December 2014 (3) Unfortunately, when people log into their social media accounts, some tend to shed normal
November 2014 (5) sensibilities or even basic civility. This is the same phenomenon that perhaps gives rise to the anomaly
October 2014 (5) of Philippine vehicular traffic, where the polite and non-confrontational is shed for disrespectful and
September 2014 (4) sometimes barbaric behavior leading to the Gordian knot that is Philippine traffic.
August 2014 (5)
July 2014 (5) Part of this is the cloak of perceived anonymity that social media brings. We therefore sometimes see
June 2014 (5) posts or commentaries meant to embarrass competence and intelligence, gender, or just plain rumor-
May 2014 (8) mongering.
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (2) However, even when done behind the cloak of a social media platform may have legal implications
February 2014 (5) under our present laws.
January 2014 (5)
December 2013 (4) THE ANTI-BULLYING ACT OF 2013 (RA 10627)
November 2013 (4) This law finds applicability in school-related bullying incidents which cover those uttered on social
October 2013 (4) media platforms. “Bullying” under this law refers to any severe, or repeated use by one or more
September 2013 (4) students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination
August 2013 (3) thereof, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in
July 2013 (5) reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a hostile
June 2013 (3) environment at school; infringing on the rights of another student at school; or materially or
April 2013 (2) substantially disrupting the education process. (Sec. 2, RA 10627) When done through the use of the
March 2013 (2) Internet, the law categorizes the same as “cyber-bullying.” (Sec. 2-D, RA 10627) This covers social
bullying aiming to belittle another individual or group or gender-based bullying which humiliates
another on the basis of perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity. (Sec. 3, B-1, RA
2017 (33)
2016 (54) 10627, Implementing Rules). However, this law only addresses student-student bullying. Hence, a
2015 (54) teacher who belittles a student in Facebook or any other social media account, on account of grades or
2014 (56) class performance, social standing or gender may not be held liable under this law.
2013 (31)
THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT
One who publicly or maliciously imputes to another a crime, vice, defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or blacken the memory of one who is dead may be liable for libel under the
Revised Penal Code. (Art. 353, RPC) These acts, when done in social media, will be punished more
severely in addition to the civil action for damages which may be brought by the offended party. (Sec.
4 (c-4), RA 10175)

Cyberlibel holds liable only the original author of the post (Sec. 5 (3), Implementing Rules of RA
10175) hence, if you are one of those who are fond of liking or reacting to a post of this character,
cyberlibel is not the crime for you.

Slander may also be applicable to one who, in heat of anger, utters statements that are highly
defamatory in character. (Art. 358, RPC)

Intriguing Against Honor may also find applicability when the principal purpose is to blemish the honor
or reputation of a person. (Art. 364, RPC) However, the requirement is that the post be directed to a
specific person. Hence, a blind item is not as actionable as a named-post in social media.

THE CIVIL CODE ON DAMAGES

One who is aggrieved by a defamatory post in social media may nonetheless find refuge in the
provisions of the Civil Code on Damages. (Art. 2176, Civil Code) One who posts in social media,
causing damage to the reputation of another may be liable to the subject for damages and this can be
a valid cause of action under the law. Such post must tend to pry to the privacy and peace of mind of
another, meddle or disturb the private life or family relations of another, intrigue to cause another to be
alienated from his friends or vex or humiliate another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station
in life, place of birth, physical defect or other personal condition. (Art. 26, Civil Code)

The recent popular posts in Facebook featuring over-weight people who are victims of body-shaming
may rely on the Civil Code for an action for damages.

THE LABOR CODE ON JUST CAUSES FOR TERMINATION

An employee who spreads rumors or intrigues against a coworker or his superior or vice versa, or who
does any act similar to cyberlibel, slander, intriguing against honor or even prying into the privacy of
another may be a just cause for his termination if embodied in the company policy in addition to all
other causes of action available to him under the laws mentioned. (Sec. 5.2 (g), D.O 147-15)

However, all the laws mentioned will only be a valid cause of action to one who is the subject of the
post and who is aware of the post directed to him. Those who simply react and call foul because a post
imputes to another an act which tarnishes one’s reputation without them being the subject of the same
has no remedy under any of our present laws.

Social media is a powerful tool. It is always best to set a limit on which issues to react to or which
people direct a post to.

While freedom of speech is well-enshrined in our Constitution, this right is not without any limitations.

In the end, it is always best to devote the stroke of our fingers and the clicks of our mouse to
intellectual discourse rather than risk being held liable under our present laws. After all, the power of
our minds should be mightier than any sword there is.

Copyright 2014. ACCRALAW. All Rights Reserved.